The EC faces a dilemma when it comes to dealing with PVC products and waste: legislation or voluntary agreements? Tina Garrity reports.

SPOTLIGHT ON PVC

The environmental impact of PVC has come under the Commission spotlight with the publication of a green paper which outlines the current composition and uses of PVC products. The paper focuses on two key aspects; the use of additives such as lead, cadmium and phthalates in PVC and the problems of dealing with PVC waste.

ADDITIVES
Although there are, as yet, no comprehensive risk assessments on the use of lead and cadmium as stabilisers in PVC products, the Commission is keen to see a reduction in use. However, it is unsure whether to propose a legislative phase-out or other reduction measures, or if voluntary agreements with the industry would be a better alternative. With regard to plasticisers the paper focuses on phthalates, of which there are currently five on the Commission's priority risk assessment list. The paper notes that longchain phthalates have a low biodegradability under normal conditions of sewage treatment and that certain phthalates can cause adverse health effects. Potential endocrine disrupting properties are also being evaluated.

In December 1999, the Commission published a decision banning the use of phthalates in certain toys and childcare articles intended to be put in the mouth. Both Denmark and Sweden are unilaterally proposing a reduction in phthalate use and Germany is looking to phase-out flexible PVC where safer alternatives are available. The Commission now wants to know if it should continue with its legislative approach to phthalates in PVC products or try for voluntary agreements.

PVC WASTE
Four options have been considered for managing PVC waste - mechanical recycling, chemical recycling, incineration and landfilling. References for scientific studies on all four options are given in the paper. The Commission wants to encourage an increase in mechanical recycling (shredding, sieving and grinding with the resulting powder being processed into new products.) It sets out six options for this, including mandatory collection and recycling targets, voluntary commitments from industry, the development of standards allowing the use of recycled PVC waste and the development of plastic identification methods to facilitate recycling. The paper asks which of these would be most effective in achieving an increase. It notes that PVC waste containing heavy metals may not be suitable for mechanical recycling and asks for opinions on this problem.

As regards chemical recycling (the breaking up of polymer molecules into smaller molecules for use in new polymers or in the chemical industry) several life cycle assessments indicate that some chemical recycling processes are better for energy use and global warming than incineration or landfill, but that mechanical recycling is preferable in environmental terms. It also appears to be unattractive in economic terms by comparison. If cost could be lowered, it might have potential for those wastes that cannot be mechanically recovered. The Commission wants opinions on this and whether voluntary or mandatory targets for an increase in chemical recycling should be set. The incineration of PVC waste and the resulting problems are described in the paper, including the debate that has raged over the link between the amount of chlorine in waste and the production during incineration of dioxins. A report was commissioned from AEA Technology on the economic implications of diverting PVC waste away from incineration.

From the results, the Commission has concluded that for all but waste containing phthalate plasticisers (where incineration ensures destruction whilst landfill can lead to leachate) a diversion away from incineration should be encouraged. However, it notes that options such as improving incineration technology and internalising its costs in the price of new PVC products should also be considered.

At present landfill is the most common destination for PVC waste. The paper notes that there is a problem with the loss of plasticisers, especially from phthalates, but while there is much literature on the subject already, the Commission feels there is a needs for further research to properly assess and quantify the environmental impacts of landfilling PVC. One solution would be to dispose of flexible PVC waste in controlled landfill sites with high emission standards, as per the new landfill directive.

The paper briefly looks at other recycling and recovery technologies, including co-incineration, but draws no conclusions. It does note that an alternative policy of substitution is possible and suggests that this may be useful for specific applications which cannot be separated from the waste stream and are thus difficult to recycle. However, such a policy would need to be underpinned by an assessment of the environmental impact during the whole life cycle and the paper does not go into this. It does, however, ask for opinions on this as a solution.

Anyone wanting to comment on the paper, which can be downloaded from the Commission's website (see below), should do so before 30 November 2000. The address for comments is given in the paper. There will be a public hearing at the Commission in October.

Green paper on the environmental issues of PVC.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pvc/index.htm